Celebrating democratisation or hollowing it out?

Name-calling essential investments for building human capital to close the inequality gap between the poor, the vulnerable, and the discriminated as "freebies" as the Minister for External Affairs, S Jaishankar, did or describing it as "revadi culture" as Prime Minister Narendra Modi did in July is an unacceptable assault on the ideas of federalism and plural politics.

It is a denial of the principle of social justice and diversity, which is a bedrock of India's political culture enshrined in its Constitution. It is a rejection of the idea of India as it was imagined on the midnight of August 15, 1947, when India woke to "life and freedom."

By accusing state governments of profligacy and warning that the consequences of "a culture of freebies" was a recipe for turmoil, Jaishankar was drawing lessons from the crisis in Sri Lanka and its likely "spillover" effect on India. Since he chose to do so at the all-party meeting convened by the Centre, it was obvious that the bizarre comparison to Sri Lanka was crafted as a warning to opposition-ruled states for unrolling pro-poor programmes that were targeted to benefit the poor, the most vulnerable and discriminated as well as the most politically sensitive segments of the population.

Track DH's Independence Day Coverage Here

The profligacy in Sri Lanka that Jaishankar trashed was, as it so happens, centrally directed by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa regime, which insisted on making irresponsible policy decisions that ruined the country's economy, especially its export sector, including the tea industry. By naming Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as profligate states, the minister made a politically motivated choice in his deviation from the agenda. It was ham-handed, especially so for a diplomat, and it iterated the basic difference between the Bharatiya Janata Party's ideology and that of the foundational values of the Constitution.

A case of 'prefectorial federalism'

Jaishankar's statement was a textbook exposition of "prefectorial federalism," in that he was delivering a disciplinary warning to delinquent states for plugging the poverty gaps that the Modi regime has systematically refused to do, in its pursuit of supply-side economic policies, instead of boosting demand. The Modi regime believed that by withholding cash transfers to the devastated workforce in Covid times, the Indian economy would be protected from inflation. He was wrong. His finance minister was wrong, and the entire establishment of the BJP got it wrong.

If the Modi regime had pursued policies that expanded the idea of cooperative federalism, instead of lashing out at states and opposition parties for "revadi culture", he would have gone against the core beliefs that underlie the BJP's ideology and agenda. And these have been summarised by Modi and the BJP in the relentless pursuit of establishing "double engine sarkar," that is, "One Party, One Nation," as the best model for development in India. The strength of Modi and the BJP's belief in the virtues of hegemony and homogeneity are all too evident in the grand plan of Har Ghar Tiranga when an estimated 20 crore households will fly the national flag on August 15 as part of the Amrit Mahotsav celebration of India's 75 years of Independence.

Federalism, whatever the adjective used to strip it of its value as a salute to diversity, challenges the idea of One Party, One Nation. Pluralism and federalism contradict Modi and the BJP's notion of "One nation, One Flag, One Identity." The clash between the original organising principles of the Indian Republic that took pride in its multicultural, multilingual, multi-ethnic, multi-religious richness and the BJP's homogenising prescriptions is an irreconcilable difference. It will power the political confrontations unfolding in every state assembly election between now and the 2024 general election when the war will peak.

Federalism as an arrangement of power and responsibility sharing between the Centre and the constituent states, as well as pluralism that respects difference and diversity, institutionalises the idea of democracy. Pluralism recognises that one party, as the ruling party, cannot adequately represent the diversity of issues, aspirations and problems in a country as large and composite as India. Multi-party democracy is anathema for the BJP and for Modi, who has tirelessly campaigned for votes to put in place the "double engine sarkar" model.

The yojana of freebies

However, there is shameless hypocrisy in the attack on freebies and 'revadi' culture. In the Uttar Pradesh state assembly elections earlier this year, the BJP, including Yogi Adityanath, Modi, Amit Shah and all the minions, fought fiercely by selling freebies, like two free gas cylinders every year for beneficiaries of the Ujjwala Yojana. By January, the economic crisis of rising prices, including food prices and joblessness combined with low wages, had deepened. To offset the grievances of voters, the Yogi Adityanath campaign offered freebies. Apart from the gas cylinders, it promised an extension of the free ration scheme, put in place during pandemic times to offset the deprivations caused by the migrant crisis and closure or downsizing of manufacturing and service sector employers.

In the playbook, pluralist politics is transmuted and villainised into borderline anti-national politics, if not outright conspirators plotting to destabilise the Modi regime and destroy India. Certainly, the opposition is accused of playing caste politics; but the BJP is praised for recognising and rewarding tiny parties representing sub-castes as a proactive, inclusive move. The prime minister's cabinet reshuffle in July 2021 demonstrated the BJP's take on plurality by inducting ministers, all junior, from
the Scheduled Caste subgroups of Jatav-Ramdassia, Khatik, Pasi, Kori, Madiga, Mahar, Arundathiyar, Dhangar, Dusadh, Matua-Namashudra, Rajbonshi and Meghwal.

For the BJP, the smaller, caste-based parties are tools it chooses to further its political ambitions of putting double-engine sarkars in every state. It does not recognise or respect that these smaller caste-based parties were founded as assertions of pride and identity and demand for inclusion in the power structure by communities that had been discriminated against and brutalised for millennia. The difference between respecting the plurality and using it to serve a specific goal is
the gulf between celebrating democratisation and hollowing it out.

Amrit Kaal

August 15 this year will usher in the 25-year-long Amrit Kaal, according to the Modi regime. What Amrit Kaal is expected to achieve is a mystery since the milestones have not been marked. The milestones are missing because to choose these, the Modi regime would have been compelled to audit its own performance. By the thumb rule measure that Mahatma Gandhi had declared — wipe the tear from every eye — as the target for India's government after Independence, the Modi regime may have found it difficult to estimate what more needs to be done. Apart from the missing Census, which has, for the first time in over a century, missed the schedule for its start, there is so much data missing on how people are doing in India that the Modi regime has avoided the inevitable outcry by the opposition, were he to announce the milestones for the next 25 years.

Neither federalism nor pluralism, especially political pluralism, intend to die a natural death. As ideas, both are flourishing. The idea of federalism, like political plurality, thrives on the sustenance it receives from regional parties that represent the local and specific aspirations of the population. In 1947, there were over 50 parties in India. By 1952, 53 political parties participated in India's first-ever universal franchise elections. The parties then ranged from the Communist Party of India to the Zamindar Party, which did not win a seat.

The people the parties represented in 1952 were far more broadly categorised. The regional and state parties in India today represent the political consciousness of every smaller group and their demand for inclusion in power sharing. Chaotic as this diversity of identities and competing demands for power sharing may be for the BJP, the smaller parties point to the political health of the idea of pluralism in India. The pressures these smaller parties exert are so connected to the grassroots that they are perhaps an unlikely band of defenders of the idea of democracy as inclusive, empowering, and reflecting an open society.

(Shikha Mukerjee is a senior journalist based in Kolkata.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.